Harms of exercise training in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished controlled trials

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101937Background: Exercise is recommended for people with cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the harms of exercise in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included published and unpublished controlled trials comparing exercise interventions versus controls in adults with cancer scheduled to undergo systemic treatment. The primary outcomes were adverse events, health-care utilization, and treatment tolerability and response. Eleven electronic databases and trial registries were systematically searched with no date or language restrictions. The latest searches were performed on April 26, 2022. The risk of bias was judged using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes was assessed using GRADE. Data were statistically synthesised using pre-specified random-effect meta-analyses. The protocol for this study was registered in the PROESPERO database (ID: CRD42021266882). Findings: 129 controlled trials including 12,044 participants were eligible. Primary meta-analyses revealed evidence of a higher risk of some harms, including serious adverse events (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.87 [1.47–2.39], I2 = 0%, n = 1722, k = 10), thromboses (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.67 [1.11–2.51], I2 = 0%, n = 934, k = 6), and fractures (risk ratio [95% CI]: 3.07 [3.03–3.11], I2 = 0%, n = 203, k = 2) in intervention versus control. In contrast, we found evidence of a lower risk of fever (risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.55–0.87], I2 = 0% n = 1109, k = 7) and a higher relative dose intensity of systemic treatment (difference in means [95% CI]: 1.50% [0.14–2.85], I2 = 0% n = 1110, k = 13) in intervention versus control. For all outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence due to imprecision, risk of bias, and indirectness, resulting in very low certainty of evidence. Interpretation: The harms of exercise in patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment are uncertain, and there is currently insufficient data on harms to make evidence-based risk-benefits assessments of the application of structured exercise in this population. Funding: There was no funding for this study.Published versio

A Phase II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Selinexor in Recurrent Glioblastoma

PURPOSE: Selinexor is an oral selective inhibitor of exportin-1 (XPO1) with efficacy in various solid and hematological tumors. We assessed intra-tumoral penetration, safety, and efficacy of selinexor monotherapy for recurrent glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-six adults with Karnofsky Performance Status≥60 were enrolled. Patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery received up to three selinexor doses (twice weekly) pre-operatively (Arm A; N=8 patients). Patients not undergoing surgery received 50mg/m(2) (Arm B, N=24), or 60mg (Arm C, N=14) twice weekly, or 80mg once weekly (Arm D; N=30). Primary endpoint was six-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). RESULTS: Median selinexor concentrations in resected tumors from patients receiving pre-surgical selinexor was 105.4nM (range 39.7-291nM). In Arms B, C, and D, respectively, the PFS6 was 10% (95%CI, 2.79-35.9), 7.7% (95%CI, 1.17-50.6), and 17% (95%CI, 7.78-38.3). Measurable reduction in tumor size was observed in 19 (28%) and RANO-response rate overall was 8.8% (Arm B, 8.3% (95%CI, 1.0-27.0); C:7.7% (95%CI, 0.2-36.0); D:10% (95%CI, 2.1-26.5)), with one complete and two durable partial responses in Arm D. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26 (34%) patients; one (1.3%) was fatal. The most common treatment-related AEs were fatigue (61%), nausea (59%), decreased appetite (43%) and thrombocytopenia (43%), and were manageable by supportive care and dose modification. Molecular studies identified a signature predictive of response (AUC=0.88). CONCLUSION: At 80mg weekly, single-agent selinexor induced responses and clinically relevant PFS6 with manageable side effects requiring dose reductions. Ongoing trials are evaluating safety and efficacy of selinexor in combination with other therapies for newly diagnosed or recurrent glioblastoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT0198634

Enhanced detection of circulating tumor DNA by fragment size analysis.

Existing methods to improve detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have focused on genomic alterations but have rarely considered the biological properties of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA). We hypothesized that differences in fragment lengths of circulating DNA could be exploited to enhance sensitivity for detecting the presence of ctDNA and for noninvasive genomic analysis of cancer. We surveyed ctDNA fragment sizes in 344 plasma samples from 200 patients with cancer using low-pass whole-genome sequencing (0.4×). To establish the size distribution of mutant ctDNA, tumor-guided personalized deep sequencing was performed in 19 patients. We detected enrichment of ctDNA in fragment sizes between 90 and 150 bp and developed methods for in vitro and in silico size selection of these fragments. Selecting fragments between 90 and 150 bp improved detection of tumor DNA, with more than twofold median enrichment in >95% of cases and more than fourfold enrichment in >10% of cases. Analysis of size-selected cfDNA identified clinically actionable mutations and copy number alterations that were otherwise not detected. Identification of plasma samples from patients with advanced cancer was improved by predictive models integrating fragment length and copy number analysis of cfDNA, with area under the curve (AUC) >0.99 compared to AUC 0.91 compared to AUC < 0.5 without fragmentation features. Fragment size analysis and selective sequencing of specific fragment sizes can boost ctDNA detection and could complement or provide an alternative to deeper sequencing of cfDNA.We would like to acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK and the EPSRC (CRUK grant numbers A11906 (NR), A20240 (NR), A22905 (JDB), A15601 (JDB), A25177 (CRUK Cancer Centre Cambridge), A17242 (KMB), A16465 (CRUK-EPSRC Imaging Centre in Cambridge and Manchester)). The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n. 337905. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge, National Cancer Research Network, Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Hutchison Whampoa Limited. This research is also supported by Target Ovarian Cancer and the Medical Research Council through their Joint Clinical Research Training Fellowship for Dr Moore. The CALIBRATE study was supported by funding from AstraZeneca

Tisotumab vedotin in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours (InnovaTV 201): a first-in-human, multicentre, phase 1-2 trial

Background Tisotumab vedotin is a first-in-human antibody–drug conjugate directed against tissue factor, which is expressed across multiple solid tumour types and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. We aimed to establish the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumour activity of tisotumab vedotin in a mixed population of patients with locally advanced or metastatic (or both) solid tumours known to express tissue factor. Methods InnovaTV 201 is a phase 1–2, open-label, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study done at 21 centres in the USA and Europe. Patients (aged ≥18 years) had relapsed, advanced, or metastatic cancer of the ovary, cervix, endometrium, bladder, prostate, oesophagus, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or non-small-cell lung cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1; and had relapsed after or were not eligible to receive the available standard of care. No specific tissue factor expression level was required for inclusion. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were treated with tisotumab vedotin between 0·3 and 2·2 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks in a traditional 3 + 3 design. In the dose-expansion phase, patients were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events, including serious adverse events, infusion-related, treatment-related and those of grade 3 or worse, and study drug-related adverse events, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of tisotumab vedotin (full analysis population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02001623, and is closed to new participants with follow-up ongoing. Findings Between Dec 9, 2013, and May 18, 2015, 27 eligible patients were enrolled to the dose-escalation phase. Dose-limiting toxicities, including grade 3 type 2 diabetes mellitus, mucositis, and neutropenic fever, were seen at the 2·2 mg/kg dose; therefore, 2·0 mg/kg of tisotumab vedotin intravenously once every 3 weeks was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. Between Oct 8, 2015, and April 26, 2018, 147 eligible patients were enrolled to the dose-expansion phase. The most common (in ≥20% of patients) treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were epistaxis (102 [69%] of 147 patients), fatigue (82 [56%]), nausea (77 [52%]), alopecia (64 [44%]), conjunctivitis (63 [43%]), decreased appetite (53 [36%]), constipation (52 [35%]), diarrhoea (44 [30%]), vomiting (42 [29%]), peripheral neuropathy (33 [22%]), dry eye (32 [22%]), and abdominal pain (30 [20%]). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were fatigue (14 [10%] of 147 patients), anaemia (eight [5%]), abdominal pain (six [4%]), hypokalaemia (six [4%]), conjunctivitis (five [3%]), hyponatraemia (five [3%]), and vomiting (five [3%]). 67 (46%) of 147 patients had a treatment-emergent serious adverse event. 39 (27%) of 147 patients had a treatment-emergent serious adverse event related to the study drug. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 17 (12%) of 147 patients. Across tumour types, the confirmed proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 15·6% (95% CI 10·2–22·5; 23 of 147 patients). There were nine deaths across all study phases (three in the dose-escalation phase and six in the dose-expansion phase); only one case of pneumonia in the dose-expansion phase was considered possibly related to study treatment. Interpretations Tisotumab vedotin has a manageable safety profile with encouraging preliminary antitumour activity across multiple tumour types in heavily pretreated patients. Continued evaluation of tisotumab vedotin is warranted in solid tumours

Contemporary management of high-grade gliomas

High-grade gliomas, including glioblastoma, are the most common malignant brain tumors in adults. Despite intensive efforts to develop new therapies for these diseases, treatment options remain limited and prognosis is poor. Recently, there have been important advances in our understanding of the molecular basis of glioma, leading to refinements in our diagnostic and management approach. There is new evidence to guide the treatment of elderly patients. A multitude of new agents have been investigated, including targeted therapies, immunotherapeutics and tumor-treating fields. This review summarizes the key findings from this research, and presents a perspective on future opportunities to advance the field

Phase 1 dose-escalation study of the antiplacental growth factor monoclonal antibody RO5323441 combined with bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma

BACKGROUND We conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study of RO5323441, a novel antiplacental growth factor (PlGF) monoclonal antibody, to establish the recommended dose for use with bevacizumab and to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety/tolerability, and preliminary clinical efficacy of the combination. METHODS Twenty-two participants with histologically confirmed glioblastoma in first relapse were treated every 2 weeks with RO5323441 (625 mg, 1250 mg, or 2500 mg) plus bevacizumab (10 mg/kg). A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation trial design was used. RESULTS RO5323441 combined with bevacizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Two participants experienced dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 meningitis associated with spinal fluid leak [1250 mg] and grade 3 cerebral infarction [2500 mg]). Common adverse events included hypertension (14 participants, 64%), headache (12 participants, 55%), dysphonia (11 participants, 50%) and fatigue (6 participants, 27%). The pharmacokinetics of RO5323441 were linear, over-the-dose range, and bevacizumab exposure was unaffected by RO5323441 coadministration. Modulation of plasmatic angiogenic proteins, with increases in VEGFA and decreases in FLT4, was observed. Dynamic contrast-enhanced/diffusion-weighted MRI revealed large decreases in vascular parameters that were maintained through the dosing period. Combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 22.7%, including one complete response, and median progression-free and overall survival of 3.5 and 8.5 months, respectively. CONCLUSION The toxicity profile of RO5323441 plus bevacizumab was acceptable and manageable. The observed clinical activity of the combination does not appear to improve on that obtained with single-agent bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Olaparib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumours and Renal Impairment

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially renally cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This phase I open-label study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of single-dose, oral 300-mg olaparib tablets in adults (aged 18-75 years) with solid tumours. Patients had normal renal function, or mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance ≥ 81, 51-80 or 31-50 mL/min, respectively). Blood was collected for 96 h, and urine samples collected for 24 h post-dose. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for a long-term safety assessment. RESULTS: Overall, 44 patients received one or more doses of olaparib and 38 were included in the pharmacokinetic assessment. Patients with mild renal impairment had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean ratio of 1.24 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.47) and a geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 1.04-1.27) vs. those with normal renal function. In patients with moderate renal impairment, the geometric least-squares mean ratio for the area under the curve was 1.44 (90% confidence interval 1.10-1.89) and for the maximum plasma concentration was 1.26 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.48) vs. those with normal renal function. No new safety signals were detected in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild renal impairment, the small increase in exposure to olaparib was not considered clinically relevant. In patients with moderate renal impairment, exposure to olaparib increased by 44%; thus, these patients should be carefully monitored and the tablet dose should be adjusted to 200 mg twice daily. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01894256